The players and club in the 30's were the exact opposite of the way our team behaves now.
Archie Croft?s recruiting splurge had far more in common with Edelston?s idiocy than the targeted recruiting practiced by Longmire etal today. Players were recruited from all over with no idea how they would be incorporated into the team (some expensive recruits didn?t).
The playing group also contained some big ego?s and what would today be called behavioural problems. Austin Robertson left the club mid season to pursue a running career, Ron Hillis quit the club after being dropped, Hugh McLaughlan got involved in a punch up with the coach, one almighty piss up got so out of hand the club secretary resigned. And then there was the 1934 grand final, which ended with several players (including Bob Pratt) accusing team mates of taking money to lose.
Incidentally the team of the 1930?s were the first to be known as the Swans rather than the Bloods!
Conclusion: In a way, by choosing the name ?Bloods? Maxfield etal have in a way repudiated the teams of the 1930?s. Was this accidental, was choosing the "Bloods" name just marketing, or did they take a serious look at our history?
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
I can still remember in the middle 50s I took up smoking because there was an add for Turf smokes with a pic of Jim Taylor 20 and Don Scott 34 Saying "We too Smoke Turf"
Turf were in a red and white pack. After the last quarter you could buy hot dogs cooked in little chip heaters .There was never enough to go around. 356 Albert Rd is still there the same as it was over 60 years ago I googled the pic up.
Do you work for the Government R1? I used to come across that sort of language quite a lot dealing with the Department of Health. Nobody said straight out what they meant and it was all wank-talk/Gov-Spik. they used terms like 'In the fullness of time', 'In the current climate', 'Funding is essentially consequential to the positive egalitarian position of the relative agencies and dependent on budgetary considerations'. Not exactly something you can either understand or rely upon. It is gobbledygook.
i agree a footy team needs something simple to get their teeth into.
(From the Thomas article.)They are humble, respectful, selfless and focus only on the team.They rarely discuss or highlight individuals. Even their stars are team players. They are boringly methodical, painstakingly disciplined, manically focussed.
Their coach John Longmire has seamlessly moved into the senior position without fanfare. He is incredibly understated and his disposition mirrors exactly the desired demeanour of the entire club. He is his own man and has taken this club to greater heights since the "without fuss" transition from former guru Paul Roos. He seems to have an even greater respect from players than Roos - if that is possible - and has more belief in the skills and abilities of his charges as evidenced by the game style. Today's team definitely move the ball quicker, take more risks and play an infinitely more entertaining style. In many ways Longmire's personality and humble style is better suited to the values and behaviour code adopted and lived by the club.
As is the habitual behaviour and "herd-like" mentality of most clubs we can expect to see off-season summits investigating what it was that allowed the Swans to win the premiership.
Identification is one thing - implementation is a completely different task.
He's so right. Everyone can see what we do, but no one can implement it.
I would walk over broken glass for Kirky, but I reckon he and Ross Lyons would be hard pressed to get the swans "culture" going over at Fweo.
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
Bookmarks